Second report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts.

Great Britain. Committee on Coroners.

Date:: 1909

Credit: Second report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts. Source: Wellcome Collection.

68/232 (page 38)

$1 July 1909.] [ Continued. as like as possible, so that the experiment should be on fairly parallel lines. If there be a large nap, you would, in the case of the ordinary flannelette, get the flare running very rapidly and easily without much drying of the goods ; but the “ Non-flam ” does not flare at all. 7235. Hven when there is a long nap ?—That is so ; you can get it to light if you follow with a match, but without that it does not spread at all. As soon as it becomes dry the ordinary flannelette seems to burn very easily. Of course, if there is a certain amount of moisture in it, it does not seem to burn very easily. 7236. You mean the body moisture or that of the air ?—Any moisture; as it dries off it seems to flare very easily. 7237. Like cotton wool almost ?—Almost like cotton wool. 7238. In using for ordinary wear, the “non-flam” flannelette, have you and Mrs. Woodhead found it equally satisfactory ?—Yes. 7239. As warm, and comfortable and soft ?—Quite. 7240. It does not lose any of the useful qualities of flannelette by this treatment ?—Not at all. In fact, we now use nothing else for sheets, except in summer when we use the cooler linen. They are very popular amongst our friends. 7241. They are rather like the Jaeger sheets, in fact >—Yes, the Jaeger sheet is wool, and this is cotton, but it has the same feeling to the skin. 7242, I think, having taken this interest in the question, you suggested to Messrs.\Whipp Brothers and Tod, and to Dr. Perkin, that they should do some experiments before a small committee P—Yes, I thought that was the most satisfactory way of settling the question of relative inflammability of ‘‘ Non-flam ” and other flannelettes. Of course, my personal opinion was not worth much. I thought a small committee should go into the matter. 7243, A small scientific committee P—Yes; and if they took it up they could put on record what the results af the tests were. 7244, Where were the tests carried out ?—In Cam- bridge. Professor Pope and I carried them out in the chemical laboratory. Mr. Bradbury brought the “ Non- flam ” samples. 7245. You did not wash them yourselves ?—No, they were sent to a laundry. 7246. To an ordinary laundry to be washed in the ordinary way ?—Yes, and a certificate was sent to say they had been washed eight or twelve times as the case might be. We took those samples and submitted them to the most trying tests we could think of, 7467. Stringent tests?—Very stringent tests, and we were satisfied that ‘‘ Non-flams” were not more inflammable than wool. They were certainly very much less inflammable than the ordinary flannelette treated under the same conditions. 7248. Will you tell me of whom the committee con- sisted ? Were you yourself the Chairman ?—No, we were simply a committee. We did not all meet. Sir William Ramsay— 7249. He is President of the University College, London ?—Yes. Dr. Kelynack, a doctor in London. Then Professor Pope, our professor of Chemistry in Cambridge, and the other gentleman I do not know personally, as I have not met him, Mr. J. C. Cain. 7250. He is editor of the Journal of the Chemical Society ?—That is so. 7251. Did they carry out any experiments ?—Yes, the same experiments were made before all of us. I simply drafted the Report. 7252. Will you kindly read the Report ?—Certainly. We, the undersigned have recently had an oppor- tunity of witnessing and controlling a number of interesting experiments on the variety of flannelette “ known as Dr. Perkin’s ‘Non-flam.’ The results obtained are so interesting And important that we feel justified in communicating our observations to your Committee. We have watched the testing of a number of typical samples of ‘Non-flam’ and find that it exhibits a quite remarkable resistance to flame, not only before washing, but even after six and twelve washings with hot water and soap. In our opinion, the material is as safe as woollen flannel ; “ indeed, all the samples we saw tested were less in flammable than such woollen flannel at three-and-a- half times the price. We consider, therefore, that the great danger of the oceurrence of injury and death ‘ by burning through the rapid ignition and persistent flaming so long associated with ordinary flannelette is removed by Dr. Perkin’s method of preparation. We have also carefully considered the process by which the fire-proofing is brought about and are convinced that nothing is added to the cloth, which can, in any way, render it injurious to the skin, a ‘* view which is confirmed by the experience of those “ of us who have worn or used the material for some years.” 7253. Has this patent been in existence for some years or have you used the flannelette for some years ? —I have used the flannelette since 1905. “We are ‘ of opinion that Dr. Perkin has succeeded in treating cotton fabrics by his ‘ Non-flam’ process in such a way that they are rendered permanently resistant to “ fire. Other methods may, of course, be discovered for bringing about the same result, but, in the mean- time, in view of the numerous accidents that have occurred in recent years, we hope that measures wil. “ be taken to put a stop to the sale of inflammable “ flannelette to be used in the manufacture of articles * of clothing.” 7254. That is signed by the whole of you P—Yes. 7255. Did you make any experiments with some other processes which render flannelette less dangerous ? —We took the short nap flannelettes. Those were the only ones we tried. 7256. That is no “process” at all. It is simply mechanical safety >—Yes. 7257. But there are some other processes as you know ?—I believe there are. 7258. You have not tested those ?—No. 7259. You cannot give us any comparative results ? —No, only with regard to the untreated and the “ non- flam ” flannelette. 7260. Which latter you found satisfactory ?—Yes. It is the only one of which I have ever been able to obtain -samples. They are the only two on sale in Cambridge—the untreated and the “non-flam.” 7261. There are several lots of untreated ?—Yes. 7262. But there is no other treated flannelette ?— No, not chemically ; they are all mechanical. Isuppose it is simply a question of finish of the surface—the removal of the nap. 7263. I thought on the market there were certain others. Are not there sold flannelettes which are said to be safe which have been treated with tungstate of soda or alum?— Yes. Here, however, I believe the trouble is that the chemicals wash out so easily. 7264. Did you work out comparative tests of a series of washings to find out how the inflammability grew ’—Yes, I did that in 1905 when I was going rather keenly into the question. I had a number of these various flannelettes washed thoroughly. We then dried them and treated them as before. We did not understand at the time, but the only condition in which youcan get the “ Non-flam”’ to lose some of that resistance is by putting it for a long time through pure water. 7265. I suppose distilled water most of all ?—Yes. We were testing the “ Non-flam” for bacteriological purposes, that is we were trying whether any of the proofing material would come out of the stuff into solution, and prevent the growth of bacteria, and whether, as a result of the action of the secretions of the skin on the material, it became more soluble. We never got anything out into solution that we could detect in any-way either by chemical or bacteriological tests, but it seemed that after a prolonged washing in very pure water the “ Non-flam” was not so fire resistant. 7266. Did ordinary washing produce any change ? —Not the slightest change. 7267. I suppose very few of our things are washed in chemically pure water in this world ?—Very few indeed, I should think. Putting it through the ordinary washing it is not effective. 7268. Soap has no effect P—No. « s a “ . n . a ” . . . ” . ” ee$